John MacArthurs false teaching on the blood of Jesus Christ

[Jeff Saunders]

If Jesus and His Body of believers are the temple I wouldn't be expecting sticks and bricks, personally

Revelation 21:22
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

If there is no temple in heaven why would God be so specific about telling Moses to how to build the first temple and why does Hebrews say that Jesus went to the true temple in heaven not the copy or shadow temple on earth. Why would scripture say that if it’s not true?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

If there is no temple in heaven why would God be so specific about telling Moses to how to build the first temple and why does Hebrews say that Jesus went to the true temple in heaven not the copy or shadow temple on earth. Why would scripture say that if it’s not true?

Because it was (the temples) natural similitudes of spiritual matters

 

[sparow]

MacArthur said: “It was His death that was efficacious, not His blood.” “Jesus didn’t bleed to death. The shedding of blood has nothing to do with bleeding.”

This is completely contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of Christ’s literal, physical blood for the remission of sins.

What the Bible Actually Teaches​

1. Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
   • The Bible does not say "without death is no remission," but rather without shedding of blood.
2. 1 Peter 1:18-19 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
   • The blood of Jesus is what redeems us, not just His death.
3. Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"
   • Again, it is His blood that brings redemption.
4. Revelation 1:5 "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"
   • Our sins are washed away by His blood, not merely His death.

The Danger of MacArthur’s Teaching​

MacArthur’s view undermines the literal necessity of the blood of Jesus. This is an attack on the Gospel itself. Satan has always tried to downplay or remove the importance of Christ’s blood because it is the very thing that defeats him.

• The Old Testament sacrifices were a foreshadowing of Christ's blood (Leviticus 17:11 "For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.").
• The Passover lamb’s blood (Exodus 12:13) is a direct picture of Jesus’ blood.
• Jesus Himself said during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28) "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Saying That Jesus Didn't Need to Bleed Is False​

John MacArthur's denial of the necessity of Christ’s literal blood is a grievous false teaching. The KJV Bible makes it abundantly clear that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us, not just His death. Anyone who denies the power of the blood is preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) and should be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17).

The Bible is crystal clear that we are justified, redeemed, and saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, not by our works, not by repenting of sins, cleaning up the life, behavior modification, not by our own righteousness, and certainly not just by His death without His shed blood.

1. Justification by the Blood​

Justification means being declared righteous before God. How does that happen? Not by our efforts, but through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

• This verse directly states that we are justified by His blood. not by baptism, works, or church membership.
• Without the blood of Christ, we are still under God's wrath!

2. Redemption Through the Blood​

Redemption means to be bought back or ransomed from sin. The price? The blood of Jesus.
Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"
1 Peter 1:18-19 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

• Jesus purchased us with His blood, just like the Passover lamb’s blood saved the Israelites (Exodus 12:13).
• His blood is precious, perfect, and the only thing that can redeem us!

3. Saved by the Blood of Jesus​

Salvation comes through faith in His blood, not our own works.
Revelation 1:5 "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"
Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

• No blood, no forgiveness! Jesus had to shed His blood to save us.
• His blood washes away our sins, not just His death.

Conclusion​

Justified by the blood (Romans 5:9)
Redeemed through the blood (Ephesians 1:7)
Saved by the blood (Revelation 1:5)

Any preacher who downplays, denies, or diminishes the blood of Jesus Christ is preaching a false gospel! The blood of Jesus is the foundation of our salvation, and without it, there is no hope.

Hebrews 10:29 warns about those who count "the blood of the covenant" an unholy thing, they are trampling on Christ’s sacrifice!
Believe in the blood of Jesus Christ, not in the false teachings of men!

Downplaying the Blood​

We should never downplay the Blood of Jesus Christ as being necessary for salvation, just as his death, burial, resurrection saves us, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his ascension and blood on the mercy seat, his second coming. It's not a pick and choose thing, no it's all of the above, Jesus paid it all and we should not downplay any one of those things. people ask questions like "does the blood save us or his death?" folks its all of the above that's how I respond when people ask questions like that. they try to say "oh youre saying we're saved by his blood but not his resurrection?" no Im not saying that, Every part of the gospel is essential we shouldn't downplay any part of it.

Jesus Escaped Death Multiple Times Because His Hour Had Not Yet Come​

There were several times when the Jews tried to kill Jesus before the cross, but He escaped every time. Why? Because He could not die in any other way- the cross and the shedding of His blood were necessary.

1. Luke 4:28-30 “And all they in the synagogue were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way.”
   • They tried to throw Him off a cliff, but He walked away because it was not His time.
2. John 7:30 “Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.”
   • Again, the Jews wanted to seize Him, but they couldn’t because God’s plan required Him to die on the cross.
3. John 8:59 “Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”
   • They tried to stone Him, but He escaped because He had to be crucified and shed His blood.

Jesus Prayed, Asking If There Was Another Way, But There Wasn’t​

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

• Jesus asked if there was any other way for mankind to be saved.
• The Father’s silence meant that there was NO OTHER WAY.
• Jesus had to shed His blood on the cross, because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22).

MacArthur’s View Contradicts This​

If John MacArthur were right, if Jesus could have just died another way and still saved us, then why:

• Did Jesus repeatedly escape death until the cross?
• Did Jesus pray, asking if there was another way?
• Does the Bible emphasize His blood over and over again?

The only answer is that Jesus had to shed His blood, there was no other way. MacArthur’s teaching contradicts the Bible and undermines the very gospel itself.

The Cross and the Blood Were Necessary​

Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t just about dying, it was about shedding His blood.

• Hebrews 9:12 “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
• 1 Peter 1:19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”
• Colossians 1:20 “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross.”

Conclusion: Jesus’ Blood Was Required, and There Was No Other Way​

Jesus escaped death multiple times because He had to die by shedding His blood on the cross. His prayer in the Garden proves that there was no other way.
MacArthur’s teaching that Jesus could have died without literally shedding his blood is a false gospel that denies the very core of salvation. The Bible says we are redeemed through His blood and nothing else.

I say it is all to do with Hebrew semantics, which translators seem to ignore. In the context of a blood covenant, breaking the covenant requires blood be shed, which means to be put to death. Regarding the price Jesus paid for the remission of sin, death has no value and blood is a metaphor, the price was Jesus's life which had value. If we substitute life for blood we have, Jesus had to shed his life, Neither by the life of goats and calves, but by his own life he (will) enter into the Most Holy place to obtain eternal redemption for us. Entering into the Most Holy place one a year and placing blood or life on the mercy seat was called Cleansing the Sanctuary, and from Daniel, After 2300 years then shall the Sanctuary be Cleansed. Then there is, the precious life of Jesus, and through the life on the cross.

 

[DamianWarS]

SPIRITUAL Significance, Jesus does not ask you to drink his literal blood, is something spriitual.

perhaps I've misunderstood you then. Is the significance of an abstract quality or a concrete?

 

[com7fy8]

Well, it looks like this is getting pretty technical.

After an animal was sacrificed, its blood might be sprinkled on the people. So, under the Law of Moses, blood remained important even after the obedient death of the animal.

So, even after Jesus has died obediently, is His shed blood still important?

I consider that we have Acts 20:28 where Paul says God purchased the church "with His own blood". And God's word says the blood of Jesus is "precious" (in 1 Peter 1:18-19). And we were "redeemed" "with the precious blood of Christ".

In Romans 3:24-25 we have how God has set forth Jesus "as a propitiation by His blood".

Romans 5:9 says we have been "justified by His blood". And "we shall be saved from wrath through Him."

And elsewhere we have that we "shall be saved by His life" (in Romans 5:10). Before this we have that we were "reconciled to God through the death of His Son".

In 1 Corinthians 11:25 we have Jesus quoted speaking of "the new covenant in My blood".

So, if the new covenant is all "in" the blood of Jesus - - - well, we do have that in order for a last will and testament to be activated "there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" (in Hebrews 9:16)

There is "the communion of the blood of Christ" (in 1 Corinthians 10:16).

One can be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (in 1 Corinthians 11:27).

"we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (in Ephesians 1:7).

We have been "brought near by the blood of Christ" (in Ephesians 2:13).

Jesus has "made peace through the blood of His cross" (in Colossians 1:20).

Priests entered the most holy place "not without blood" (Hebrews 9:7).

And Jesus "with His own blood He entered into the Most Holy Place once for all" (in Hebrews 9:12).

"how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14)

"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood." (Hebrews 9:18)

"the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (in 1 John 1:7).

Jesus "loved us and washed us in His own blood" (in Revelation 1:5)

In Revelation 7:14 we have that people "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (in Revelation 7:14)

I consider that now the blood of Jesus is resurrected so it can spiritually minister cleansing and the new covenant.

In Revelation 12:1-11 we see how ones have overcome the accuser of the brethren >

"by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony".

If this is only a metaphor > > > a metaphor for what? Because this is what overcomes Satan. I do not think some metaphorical platitude would be able to defeat Satan.

"He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called the Word of God." (Revelation 19:13)

It looks to me like "blood" can be metaphorical and it can mean the historical blood of Jesus on Calvary. And there are things connected with Christ's blood, ministering to us.

And we have how we were "bought at a price", in 1 Corinthians 6:20 and in 1 Corinthians 7:23.

We were redeemed by His blood, and redeeming can mean buying or paying for. His blood bought us, redeemed us, then, I can see.

So, yes Jesus dying has been good for us because He obeyed in how He died >

"by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous" (in Romans 5:19). So, the obedience of Jesus has made His blood and death of such value to us. And our obedience in Jesus has God's all-loving results.

God has used Christ'a blood and His death. And now God uses us and our things and actions to minister His grace. However, the All-Worker in and through it all is the One causing all His good.

 

[The Liturgist]

Such a remark was probably intended to be anti-Eucharistic in nature, since on the basis of a literal interpretation of John 6, 1 Corinthians 11 and the corresponding pericopes in the Synoptic Gospels, the traditional churches (Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Moravians, Oriental Orthodox, high church Anglicans and Episcopalians, high church Methodists, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Roman Catholics, the traditional Old Catholics like the PNCC and the Norwegian Catholic Church, and the Continuing Anglicans of an Anglo-Catholic persuasion, and also Reformed Catholics such as high church Congregationalists and liturgical Presbyterians, among others, believe that we actually eat the Body of Christ our True God for the remission of sins and drink His precious blood, the seal of the new covenant, and in so doing become Partakers of the Divine Nature (quoting the Petrine epistles), in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist, as an anamnesis of the Last Supper, is the apex of Christian worship and the most important thing that happens in the church, and that it is a means of salvific grace for the inheritance of life everlasting.

Non-denominational low church Reformed like John MacArthur, whose views on the Eucharist ff I recall are not Calvinist but are rather Zwinglian or Memorialist, tend to disagree and occasionally some theologians use unfortunate language to describe our beliefs, or in this case, make offensive remarks. But not all. For example, I greatly admire the Southern Baptist theologian Dr. Albert Mohler, and regard him as the foremost moral theologian in the Western church at present, since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy and Pope John Paul II in 2007 and 2005, despite the fact that I disagree with his sacramental theology entirely. However, he is respectful of the traditional churches and works with us on issues like supporting the Pro-Life movement and the sanctity of marriage, and the defense of traditional family values and traditional human sexuality. John MacArthur on the other hand used extremely unkind language when Dr. Hank Haanegraaf, who at the time was battling cancer, joined with his family the Eastern Orthodox Church, accusing him of apostasy.

Indeed we very frequently seem to have threads about John MacArthur having said something that has caused offense to large numbers of Christians, whether Protestants of Evangelical persuasion or Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics or Pentecostals, so the man is definitely no stranger to controversy. Indeed, he has made so many bold statements on different issues that some of them I even agree with, but most of them I do not, and he is not diplomatic but rather treads heavily when making these statements, in a manner that attracts attention but does not endear him to those who disagree.

That said I would encourage everyone who disagrees with him to pray for him and to be charitable, as per the instructions of our Lord and the Apostles.

Also I am thankful for the fact that in the US we have the right to make controversial statements on religious matters like those made by John MacArthur. That does not mean that doing so is an effective means of communicating or promoting one’s point of view, but it is our right, and in some cases, there are situations where our conscience does not permit us to compromise.

 

[sparow]

Such a remark was probably intended to be anti-Eucharistic in nature, since on the basis of a literal interpretation of John 6, 1 Corinthians 11 and the corresponding pericopes in the Synoptic Gospels, the traditional churches (Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Moravians, Oriental Orthodox, high church Anglicans and Episcopalians, high church Methodists, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Roman Catholics, the traditional Old Catholics like the PNCC and the Norwegian Catholic Church, and the Continuing Anglicans of an Anglo-Catholic persuasion, and also Reformed Catholics such as high church Congregationalists and liturgical Presbyterians, among others, believe that we actually eat the Body of Christ our True God for the remission of sins and drink His precious blood, the seal of the new covenant, and in so doing become Partakers of the Divine Nature (quoting the Petrine epistles), in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist, as an anamnesis of the Last Supper, is the apex of Christian worship and the most important thing that happens in the church, and that it is a means of salvific grace for the inheritance of life everlasting.

Non-denominational low church Reformed like John MacArthur, whose views on the Eucharist ff I recall are not Calvinist but are rather Zwinglian or Memorialist, tend to disagree and occasionally some theologians use unfortunate language to describe our beliefs, or in this case, make offensive remarks. But not all. For example, I greatly admire the Southern Baptist theologian Dr. Albert Mohler, and regard him as the foremost moral theologian in the Western church at present, since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy and Pope John Paul II in 2007 and 2005, despite the fact that I disagree with his sacramental theology entirely. However, he is respectful of the traditional churches and works with us on issues like supporting the Pro-Life movement and the sanctity of marriage, and the defense of traditional family values and traditional human sexuality. John MacArthur on the other hand used extremely unkind language when Dr. Hank Haanegraaf, who at the time was battling cancer, joined with his family the Eastern Orthodox Church, accusing him of apostasy.

Indeed we very frequently seem to have threads about John MacArthur having said something that has caused offense to large numbers of Christians, whether Protestants of Evangelical persuasion or Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics or Pentecostals, so the man is definitely no stranger to controversy. Indeed, he has made so many bold statements on different issues that some of them I even agree with, but most of them I do not, and he is not diplomatic but rather treads heavily when making these statements, in a manner that attracts attention but does not endear him to those who disagree.

That said I would encourage everyone who disagrees with him to pray for him and to be charitable, as per the instructions of our Lord and the Apostles.

Also I am thankful for the fact that in the US we have the right to make controversial statements on religious matters like those made by John MacArthur. That does not mean that doing so is an effective means of communicating or promoting one’s point of view, but it is our right, and in some cases, there are situations where our conscience does not permit us to compromise.

I do not know anything about MacArthur, so I risk going off topic. What I read in the post is the Passover, the Lord's Supper. Christ said, eat the unleavened bread and drink the wine in memory of me, but is this an alternate Christian Passover or an addition to the Passover? Has the Church changed the whole meaning of the Passover feast.

 

[The Liturgist]

Has the Church changed the whole meaning of the Passover feast.

No.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not know anything about MacArthur, so I risk going off topic

So better not ask me in this thread then eh? I will happily answer in a different thread or by PM.